Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Democracy Simulator]

Not much you can do about opportunists:

Occupy leaders called the violent demonstrators 'anarchists' and said they were not part of the movement.

I abhor violence and vandalism, but if you're trying to tell me that the vandals are anything but a bunch of opportunists that are not representative of OWS in general, then you're going to have to provide cold hard evidence.

 

[Brainster]

What does, 'sizeable sector' mean? 10%? 20%? 0.000000001%? What's your rough estimate of anarchists and violent leftists who do not want to take part in peaceful demonstration? Perhaps you could show me your workings? Let's divide the amount of protesters, by the acts of violent protesters. It must be 1 in 10,000 or greater. Quite 'sizeable', if by sizeable you mean minuscule and insignificant. If you have any other data, please lay it down.

Somebody posted the Wikipedia page to show how diverse the group was; why 1/3 of them were over 35! Well, there is some more data:

On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda.

 

[Virus]

I abhor violence and vandalism, but if you're trying to tell me that the vandals are anything but a bunch of opportunists that are not representative of OWS in general, then you're going to have to provide cold hard evidence.

Adbusters are one of the groups who organized OWS and they advocate violent revolution.

This is nothing new. I said it was made up of various factions of hard left. Some believe in violence, some believe in violence but not yet, and some believe in non-violence.

 

[JihadJane]

Not much you can do about opportunists:

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/03/article-2056887-0EA4C51800000578-394_634x889.jpg[/qimg]



I abhor violence and vandalism, but if you're trying to tell me that the vandals are anything but a bunch of opportunists that are not representative of OWS in general, then you're going to have to provide cold hard evidence.

Smear doesn't need evidence.

 

[stokes234]

Somebody posted the Wikipedia page to show how diverse the group was; why 1/3 of them were over 35! Well, there is some more data:

Do you have a link to the specific questions asked? "Violence to advance your agenda" could mean a few things - it might mean violence if the police started it, or violence in response to feeling that their rights were being violated, which while still bad, aren't as damning as supporting beating people up to make a political point.

I've seen protests where the police have started the violence, and while I haven't participated, it's very easy to get angry very quickly when you see people being beaten with truncheons when they don't seem to deserve it.

 

[stilicho]

Somebody posted the Wikipedia page to show how diverse the group was; why 1/3 of them were over 35! Well, there is some more data:

What on earth are the Oakland school boards and city administrators thinking?

Oakland let city workers use vacation or other paid time to take part in Wednesday’s march, and officials said about 5 per cent took the day off.

About 360 Oakland teachers — or roughly 18 per cent of the district’s 2,000 teachers — didn’t show up for work, officials said.

http://www.thestar.com/article/1080531--occupy-oakland-protests-paralyze-major-u-s-port

The mayor of Oakland is actually encouraging these nuts. Sounds like a great place to open a business.

A roving group of about 100 mostly young men broke from the main group of protesters in a central plaza and roamed through downtown streets spraying graffiti, burning garbage and breaking windows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us/protest-in-oakland-turns-violent.html

To argue that these individuals are not a part of the Occupy "movement" is a lie. That report says that the number of protesters counted into the "thousands" which could be as few as 2,000. If so, the per cent of criminals included in the "movement" could be as high as 5%. This doesn't include the rapists, thieves and drug dealers.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

OOh, 5%. Man, that tar brush sure is thick.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Somehow I'm reminded of the blinding hypocrisy of those teaparty critics who couldn't wait to tag the racist bigotry label any chance there was when there was a similar complaint, who didn't even consider that their judgements were themselves committing guilt by association. Near as I can tell OWS, lacks the organization, unity, and exhibits much more widespread interruption than anything I can recall hearing from the tea party. More than anything I think that puts things into perspective.

So am I, and next time I see people in this thread arguing that one person doesn't represent the movement I plan to gleefully remind them what they said here. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

See, substantial criticisms start with the fact they are really proposing no viable solutions or performing the function of what the TP did: driving the base of a big tent party to their direction and getting their policies enacted.

 

[RandFan]

but if you're trying to tell me that the vandals are anything but a bunch of opportunists that are not representative of OWS in general, then you're going to have to provide cold hard evidence.

How do you provide cold hard evidence of the negative? Do you have cold hard evidence that they are?

 

[RandFan]

Here is a different take on the subject.
Matt Taibbi’s Fact Souffle

I am not sure how it was determined that Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs. $220 million was loaned to Waterfall to purchase loans. The loans were non recourse because at the time it was difficult to find the amount of investors neccesary to do what the program was supposed to. Do I agree that this type of investment allowed rich people to earned some money with little or no risk. Yes large institutional and some individual investors are those with the funds available. And at that time some incentive was neccesary to get them from choosing other investments for their money.

They were passive investors in Waterfall so I don't know what Matt Taibbi derision of their financial abilities or comments on the deceased John Macks appearance has to do with anything.

Here was want the TALF program was supposed to do
The asset-backed securities (ABS) market has been under strain for some months. This strain accelerated in the third quarter of 2008 and the market came to a near-complete halt in October. At the same time, interest rate spreads on AAA-rated tranches of ABS rose to levels well outside the range of historical experience, reflecting unusually high risk premiums. The ABS markets historically have funded a substantial share of credit to consumers and businesses. Continued disruption of these markets could significantly limit the availability of credit to households and businesses of all sizes and thereby contribute to further weakening of U.S. economic activity.

I do agree with the letter that certain facts about the TALF program investments should be transparent. I don't know why Bernanke refuse to give details if that is true.

I'm not sure how that clears up anything. Nothing in your post explains how facts were mixed up. So what if they were passive investors? Did they benefit? I also don't quite understand the logic, "if we didn't incentivize them they would have found other uses for the money"?

I've not read the article but based on your summary I'm not sure if you understand its significance. Perhaps you could clear it up. If not I'll look at it latter. As it is, it looks like rather weak.

 

[RandFan]

So are these loans all that they are on about? What if these two women aren't technically a part of the 1%? What if they're just in the top quintile or the second quintile?

I don't give a damn about the propaganda. Never bought into it. Don't care.

Without any further information or seeing the audit trail, these are loans that should not have been made, or not at the rate they were made. I can say that without dressing as a clown or taunting the police in a downtown park.

"Super pissed off?" Probably not.

EDIT: I'm certain all the Occupy people will refuse a student loan bailout to establish their principled position in opposing such loans as detailed above.

I don't get your edit, at all, how are student loans "such loans"? Not all low interest loans are alike and it turns out that student loans are very different for a number of reasons.

 

[RandFan]

Somehow I'm reminded of the blinding hypocrisy of those teaparty critics who couldn't wait to tag the racist bigotry label any chance there was when there was a similar complaint, who didn't even consider that their judgements were themselves committing guilt by association. Near as I can tell OWS, lacks the organization, unity, and exhibits much more widespread interruption than anything I can recall hearing from the tea party. More than anything I think that puts things into perspective.

Oh there is hypocrisy everywhere. I defended the Tea Party against many of my friends on the left. Trust me on this one, there is enough hypocrisy and more to go around. What's funny is how most can only see it in others. One need only read this thread. BTW: Compare fox news coverage of the Tea Party compared to their coverage of OWS.

 

[RandFan]

Taibbi doesn't know anything about finance and toxic assets. How are you going to get anybody to buy bad loans, unless:

a) They are rich
b) You provide them with a limited downside.

Taibbi of course wants to focus on the $220 million they were loaned; but he's at least fair in noting:

Yes you give them an incentive. Why the hell do we need to provide incentive (give them an easy way to make a profit) someone else to fix a problem created by someone else? How you think that you are making this better is beyond me.

• Banks that are too big to fail @#$% up and make lots of bad loans.
• Those loans are packaged in complex derivatives and sold and hedged against.
• This creates a house of cards.
• The house of cards falls.
• This puts the American economy at risk because THE BANKS ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
• Feds step in and use public money to purchase the bad loans.
• They then give money to rich people to buy the loans (the American public keeps the bulk of the risk). Because "hey, who on earth would want to buy crap loans"? I know, I know who, the elected officials of the American people using public money THAT'S WHO.
• And we (the American people) are not supposed to notice this slight of hand so it's kept secret.

But it's okay, someone with experience in loans will come along and defend it because, hey, were just the American public. We should all sit down and shut up and take getting screwed like the good little sheep.

 

[RandFan]

It isn't that hard folks...

...this isn't rocket science. Nor is it anything we haven't done before. Nor is it something that other nations don't do.

• Listen to David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) and raise the god damn tax rates.
• Listen to Paul Volker (former Federal Reserve chief under Carter and Reagan) and don't let banks gamble with investors deposits (that are insured by the FDIC).
• Return financial regulations to the way they were following the great depression.
• Separate financial institutions restricting them to what they specialize in. Banks should not be in insurance. Insurance companies should not be in banking and leave investing to firms that specialize in investing. No, it's not possible 100% but it's largely doable (see Canada and America before deregulation).
• Implement the recommendations of Elizabeth Warren.
• Investigate the housing loan debacle.
• Investigate wall street.
• Pass a law making it illegal to destroy discovery obtained from SEC investigations (come on, be honest did YOU know it was legal to destroy evidence of a crime)?

 

[Brainster]

Yes you give them an incentive. Why the hell do we need to provide incentive (give them an easy way to make a profit) someone else to fix a problem created by someone else? How you think that you are making this better is beyond me.

• Banks that are too big to fail @#$% up and make lots of bad loans.
• Those loans are packaged in complex derivatives and sold and hedged against.
• This creates a house of cards.
• The house of cards falls.
• This puts the American economy at risk because THE BANKS ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
• Feds step in and use public money to purchase the bad loans.
• They then give money to rich people to buy the loans (the American public keeps the bulk of the risk). Because "hey, who on earth would want to buy crap loans"? I know, I know who, the elected officials of the American people using public money THAT'S WHO.
• And we (the American people) are not supposed to notice this slight of hand so it's kept secret.

But it's okay, someone with experience in loans will come along and defend it because, hey, were just the American public. We should all sit down and shut up and take getting screwed like the good little sheep.

You act like this was the intent. I can assure you it was not. But are you ready to acknowledge that Taibbi doesn't know what he's talking about? I noticed what you did there; you snipped out the part where I showed that he was wrong about defaults on commercial mortgages.

And on your precious Occupy Movement, did you notice that one of the things Obamaville Oakland "accomplished" yesterday was to shut down the Port of Oakland? Is that going to help the economy recover? You've invested yourself in this buffoonish movement based on nothing more than "they're protesting". Well, guess what? Your goal, which is for the economy to get back to the good old days of Clinton, is not their goal. Their goal is to smash the system even worse.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Obamaville? Really?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Obamaville? Really?

I heard an Occutard on Wisconsin Public Radio use this term. (I think it was on the program "Here on Earth".)

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I started reading your post then I saw Occutard, so I'm afraid I didn't read it. I'm sorry.

 

[stokes234]

And on your precious Occupy Movement, did you notice that one of the things Obamaville Oakland "accomplished" yesterday was to shut down the Port of Oakland? Is that going to help the economy recover? You've invested yourself in this buffoonish movement based on nothing more than "they're protesting". Well, guess what? Your goal, which is for the economy to get back to the good old days of Clinton, is not their goal. Their goal is to smash the system even worse.

This is fairly standard protesting practice, and has been for a long time. Strikes basically work entirely off this premise. The goal of strikers isn't to make sure schools don't run, or x product doesn't get made, but to use the negative consequences of this to put weight behind their demands.

I suspect you already knew this, but were just using rhetoric to paint your political opponents in a bad light.